Classic gaming difficulty vs. Modern gaming difficulty

[JudgeYohance]

To be honest, with the exception of possibly Demon's Souls, I find many modern games too easy even on their max difficulty settings. I remember taking weeks to beat some games like Silver Surfer and Contra (without the code).

Maybe I am biased towards the newer games since so many seem to be just shooters but does anyone think there are some modern games that can meet up to the legendary difficulty standards pf the past games like these?

[Robocop2]

I agree that games have gotten easier to a certain extent with the regenerating health, unlimited retries, and the fact that nearly every game has some sort of save function built in (though that last one is kind of a necessity when you have a game that takes at least 8 hours to complete, very few people can commit that amount of free time to playing a game) Though on some levels they are more challenging at least on higher difficulties, think Halo on Legendary or Dead Space 2 on hardcore mode (the hardest difficulty, limited to 3 saves total, and if you die you start off at your last save)

I suppose really though modern games have been made more accessible to a wider variety of gamers since you have a myriad of difficulties available and the challenge is there for people who want it and not for those that just want to play a game.

Though alot of games in the past were purely made difficult by poor design or the limitations of the technology. Some were just frustratingly hard to beat Ghosts n Goblins comes to mind as an example. I certainly don't have a good time if a game makes me want to tear my hair out repeatedly. Really though especially with alot of older games its all down to pattern memorization especially with shooters. R-type is supposedly not as difficult if you find exactly where to be on the screen at a given time.

So basically yes in some respects I think older games are more difficult but in different ways and for different reasons, additionally I find some games I thought were super hard when I was a kid are not as difficult as an adult for some reason.

[YoshiM]

Well, for one thing many of the games of today are designed to be "experiences" as opposed to just being "games". They are more about the story, the characters, the plot, etc. more so than actual game play.

Take a look at Alan Wake. Got great reviews, has a great story (I loved it-couldn't wait to get through the game to find out what happens) and the graphics and atmosphere are top notch. However the game play is practically old school Silent Hill combat with more linearity: Watch/listen some part that adds to the story, blast a bunch of evil dudes as you make your way to the next check point, rinse and repeat. If you got hurt, you could wait a bit or find a lamp post to heal under. Or the original BioShock, which does hearken back to the difficulty of the System Shock games but now you have Vitachambers which can bring you back to life if you buy the farm.

Accessibility, like what Robocop2 mentioned, is partly the reason. The other reason is flow. The game has to flow to keep the thrill of the story going. Getting offed every few minutes breaks that flow and could break the player's desire to continue the game. To have them equal the difficulty of games from yesteryear would make the game too unrelenting and would possibly cause today's gamer to just give up.

As for what games today equal the difficulty of the past, I'd say check out titles on XBLA, PSN, etc. Those with worthy challenge are, surprise, influenced by the classic design of yesteryear.

Now the big question is, what does everyone prefer-the gritty difficulty of the past or the heroic-feeling experience of today?

[Edmond Dantes]

It depends on the game, really.

To be honest a lot of older games are pitifully easy too, and even given that, I've never understood why difficulty was such a big deal. I mean, I can beat Mega Man 3 pretty easily but its still fun.

[Enigmus]

The gritty difficulty. To me, most modern games are terrible as far as challenge goes due to most devs thinking that "great game" means "interactive movie." The only one to come close to classic difficulty at points, IMO, would be the Lego games, mainly Lego Star Wars 1 and 2. I'd rather be hearing "awesome gameplay" out of people's mouthes than drooling over texture quality any day (which is also one of the reasons I loathe G4.) A classic-style game beats the regenerating health style most use today (with the only big aversion being first party Nintendo games) due to it actually forcing you to build actual skill up instead of relying on health recharging nonstop. Some can say it dates back to Doom, yet Doom still punished the player for dying by removing all weapons but the fist and pistol. Either way, I'd rather have my game let me use my imagination to flesh out a plot instead of cutscenes and regeneration.

[kupomogli]

Now the big question is, what does everyone prefer-the gritty difficulty of the past or the heroic-feeling experience of today?

I like when most games released were challenging titles that really tested your skills.

Games now days even the difficult ones have checkpoints that are all too frequent, unlimited lives, and regenerating health(like Robocop mentioned.) I finished Uncharted 2 on crushing difficulty with hardly any deaths due to playing through the game almost twice in a row(hard then crushing) and getting better on the game.) Recently I started a new game on crushing just to play through again after putting it down for quite awhile and died atleast 20 times before getting to Nepal in comparison to the one or two times at most the first time I've played crushing. If it was no checkpoints through that entire area and no infinite lives I would have given up I'm sure.

Compare that to Ninja Gaiden 2 where your checkpoints were at the beginning of each screen change. Or at the very end of the game when you died at the last boss you were required to play through the entire stage. I don't remember as I don't use continues on Ninja Gaiden 2(if I happen to lose that certain time, I completely start over) but I think that if you were stage 2-2 and had to continue you'd restart at 2-1. Much more of a challenge than just continuing over and over at the last boss or whoever you are at on newer games.

[sheath]

Difficulty was never my thing, challenge was. I wanted a game to present something new to me in gameplay that I felt like I had to learn. Those are the games that made me play them.

Games today have to play the same as most other games or they don't sell. If the gameplay is too different it'll break some gamers from hitting that next checkpoint and being rewarded by a non-gaming story segment.

Up until the PS2 era standard control schemes did not exist to the degree they do today.

[JudgeYohance]

Games now days even the difficult ones have checkpoints that are all too frequent, unlimited lives, and regenerating health

I think this is often my problem with newer games. I am one of those gamers that starts playing any game at max difficulty. Example, i recently borrowed a copy of Modern Warfare 2 from a friend and tried it on max difficulty which he said would give me a hard game....It took me 11 hours to beat the campaign. Now I am not saying I am just that good (though feel free to interpret it that way :) ) I just didn't think it was that big a challenge when the AI doesn't understand the idea of taking cover or burst fire.


To me, most modern games are terrible as far as challenge goes due to most devs thinking that "great game" means "interactive movie."

Final Fantasy 13 is guilty of this to such a high extent i can't believe FF fans didn't try to burn down their studios over it.


To be honest a lot of older games are pitifully easy too, and even given that, I've never understood why difficulty was such a big deal. I mean, I can beat Mega Man 3 pretty easily but its still fun.

Agreed and I love the Mega Man Series. I am just saying that when the game is easy and is so short (MP will NEVER be enough to sell me a game. It must be able to stand on it's SP gameplay) that it is not worth the 60 dollar price tags they put on it and I feel they make a poor substitute to games where the SP is fun yet very hard.


Well, for one thing many of the games of today are designed to be "experiences" as opposed to just being "games". They are more about the story, the characters, the plot, etc. more so than actual game play.


Another trend that annoys me. I will admit I have said that a bad plot will kill a otherwise good game for me but i felt that games like Persona 4 proved that you can have both a superb story and character as well as fun and addicting gameplay.

Ultimately I want the game to give me more then a 1 day playthrough and a i think a lot of modern games are just that if you cut out the 500 hours of cut scenes they seem to add these days.


Compare that to Ninja Gaiden 2

God any game that bares that name you certainly got your money's worth. (And a month of your life gone...and a broken thumb or two :) )

[Aussie2B]

They're way niche, but I think modern bullet hell shmups can be just as difficult as anything from the past. But if you're into the genre, then you're probably also the sort that obsesses over 1CCing a shmup and have mastered the genre to such an extent that anything other than soul-crushingly difficult (to the rest of the gaming populace, that is) would be too easy for you. So, really, this could be an example how difficulty can hurt the overall popularity of a game or genre. They've given up on expanding their fanbase for the sake of keeping the fanbase they already have.

So I would say that difficult games still exist, but the real change is the difficulty of mainstream games. In the 80s, it was acceptable for a mainstream, popular release to also be very difficult, but starting with the 16-bit generation and even more so with each following generation, mainstream games have been kept at a level to be welcoming to the lowest common denominator (just look at the drop between Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World or Castlevania 3 and 4). It was also acceptable in the 80s to buy a game and enjoy it but maybe not be able to beat it. Now, everyone wants to beat every single game they buy otherwise it is viewed as a waste of money and time (which is sad because we SHOULD be playing games for the experience of playing them itself). That's not to say that all mainstream games were difficult back then, just like how the Mega Man games were brought up as fairly easy, but can you imagine stuff like Battletoads, Ninja Gaiden 2, Castlevania 3, and Zelda 2 coming out now? Those were all very popular and mainstream back then, despite the challenge, yet now it's an oddity to get a Game Over at all in a new Zelda or Castlevania.

[The 1 2 P]

While I'll agree that old school games were usually harder(even if that was only because you couldn't save) there are still a fair amount of tough games today(the Ninja Gaiden series being a prime example). But as others have already said most games today are designed to be accessible to the greatest amount of people as possible. Otherwise only hardcore gamers would want them and that would seriously limit a publishers market.

I do like games that challenge me, especially when I get an achievement to prove that I did something difficult and never have to do it again. But theres also a fine line between challenging gameplay and "I just threw my controller three city blocks" gameplay. The latter is something I'd like to keep in the past.

[kedawa]

There's definitely a trend toward easier single player experiences, maybe because highly competitive multiplayer games are where the hardcore players test their mettle.
There are still some sadistically difficult single player games, even though games in general have just gotten easier

[BetaWolf47]

I actually find modern FPSes to be quite difficult. I'm playing Rainbow Six Vegas for PC on medium and keep dying, dying, and dying. Same deal with Chronicles of Riddick on PC. Either that or I just suck...

[Edmond Dantes]

The Rainbow Six series is kind of a different kettle of fish. IIRC those are more strategy games that happen to have a first-person segment rather than actual FPSes.

Unless that changed in the Vegas installment.

[kedawa]

They've gotten a lot less tactical over the years.

[sheath]

I actually find modern FPSes to be quite difficult. I'm playing Rainbow Six Vegas for PC on medium and keep dying, dying, and dying. Same deal with Chronicles of Riddick on PC. Either that or I just suck...

I just can't figure out why Chronicles of Riddick displays only the top left fourth of the screen on my HTPC. If it would stop that I'd be very happy to play it more.

But yeah, try and re-die is the primary game theory today on difficulty. There used to be a lot more games that were both easy to pick up and play, and challenging/rewarding to master.

[YoshiM]

There used to be a lot more games that were both easy to pick up and play, and challenging/rewarding to master.

This. The easy to pick up and play also lends to a quick evaluation on whether or not you actually *like* the game. The older games you could find out in maybe a half hour tops if it's your cup of tea. For a good deal of games I've run across over the past two generations I play for a few hours and lose interest for whatever reason only to hear "you should have played longer-the good part was coming up." Why does it take hours to get to "the good part"?

[maxlords]

Aussie already mentioned it but play some Cave shmups. The bullet hell shooters are one of the most mind-numbingly difficult modern genres out there ;)

I personally find the more modern run n gun games insanely difficult as well...stuff like the new Hard Corps Uprising, Neo Contra, stuff like that. They brutalize me.

[Az]

As for newer games being just "interactive" I can think of several that, while I enjoyed them, after finishing them and fleshing out the entire plot I really had no desire to play them anymore. The difficulty was so low and gameplay so hand-holding, it was like the feeling of a book or movie, and I don't sit down the next evening and reread the same book I just finished. I could probably play drums to my favorite 5-6 songs on Guitar Hero every night of the week just to top my score, but I don't see myself plugging in Halo 3 again any time soon. How many times have you heard of someone trading in a game at Gamestop just because they "beat" it? Nostalgia aside, I feel a lot of older games were designed to be replayed a lot more than the single player experiences handed out today.

I've watched my 8 year old stepson grow as a gamer and his idea of a fun game is definitely not the shit I found fun at 8. He wanted to try a lightgun game on my SMS a few years ago and his complaint was that it "didn't let you play it like you wanted", meaning it was very linear, difficult, and he actually saw the game over screen continuously. His idea of fun nowadays is driving the warthog around in Halo for hours, crashing cars and doing crazy stuff in sandbox games, and spending forever in the customization part of a character creator. To me, that sounds like he's just taking his games as an interactive toybox full of cars and action figures, playing like he wants, which is fine. If he's throwing granades at himself in Crackdown is a lot safer that me lighting my GI Joes with firecrackers.

I think the whole "unlock" thing is a bullshit carrot on a stick that is just way, way overdone. If people quit playing a game once they unlock everything or every achievement, then that doesn't sound like too good of a game in the first place. I remember my nephews playing King of the Monsters on my cabinet one day. They defeated the first level, looked at their Dad with this priceless sense of accomplishment, then shouted in unison "What did we unlock?!?!"

[sheath]

You just described why my boy has my SMS 2 hooked up to an SDTV with nothing but one game per week he will be allowed to switch to. He's only 3, and he can't play anything yet, but I'll be damned if he gets spoiled by modern stuff.

Once he gets some dexterity I'll let him play two player NES games with me too. I just can't decide how quickly to let the generations progress. One year, five years, never? ;)

[Edmond Dantes]

I so agree about unlocking.

It works the other way too: When they make stuff "unlockable" that really should be available from the beginning. I don't really like unlocks. Which actually makes From Software's RPGs more respectable, now that I think about it.

[trench-a-licious]

They've gotten a lot less tactical over the years.

What is sad is now I struggle with games more than I did as a kid. Perhaps it is just age getting the best of me and slowing me down or maybe now I just dont have as much time to play and get good at a game. That and I could only rent games in the past, now I can buy whatever I choose. Its one of those :)

[Rob2600]

Two big reasons why older games seem more difficult:

1. Stiff and/or awkward controls in old games. The controls in today's games are usually much more responsive, fluid, and offer a wider variety of movements and abilities.

2. Collision detection was sometimes horrible in old games. I think that's improved overall in today's games.

[Eleuthria]

Obviously the difficulty curve has gone down tremendously for years. Most the old NES games were a "one mistake and you're out" type of system, where the only way to beat a game was to replay it over and over, getting slightly further each time and learning from your mistakes.

That was a good model when the cartridge size and medium couldn't handle significant game lengths. Most NES games can probably be beaten in less than one hour, if you know what you're doing. Difficulty is what stretched that hour into a few weeks.

As cartridges (and eventually discs) could hold enough data to allow much longer adventures, including branching paths and reliable saves, developers shifted from stretching gameplay via difficulty to padding out the gameplay into a more enjoyable experience.

While I would like to say I always preferred the harsh challenges of the classic games, I think that would be a lie. Being able to play a game and beat it without repeating sections dozens of time is a significantly more fun experience, even if beating the game doesn't feel as grand as conquering the original Mega Man or Ninja Gaiden games.

[kedawa]

I definitely don't miss having to slog through the same levels over and over, but I think something like Super Mario World is the best way to approach things. You can replay any level after you've finished it, but you don't have to.

[Aussie2B]

1. Stiff and/or awkward controls in old games. The controls in today's games are usually much more responsive, fluid, and offer a wider variety of movements and abilities.


I think what you're getting at is that controls were often more restrictive back then. Like if you made a jump, you're committed to that jump, no turning around in mid-air. I don't think controls back then were any less responsive on the whole or anything that can be seen as negative. Some may find it stiff or awkward, especially younger gamers that grew up with more forgiving control schemes, but I can appreciate a control scheme like in the classic Castlevania games and such. It's undeniably 100% intentional on the part of the developers, and it's spot-on for those aims. When mastered, it's a very fluid experience.

[Rob2600]

I think what you're getting at is that controls were often more restrictive back then. Like if you made a jump, you're committed to that jump, no turning around in mid-air. I don't think controls back then were any less responsive on the whole or anything that can be seen as negative. Some may find it stiff or awkward, especially younger gamers that grew up with more forgiving control schemes, but I can appreciate a control scheme like in the classic Castlevania games and such. It's undeniably 100% intentional on the part of the developers, and it's spot-on for those aims. When mastered, it's a very fluid experience.

That's part of what I meant, but I also meant the control in some games back then were just not as responsive or fluid as they are today. Compare Karate Champ on the NES to Street Fighter IV (or even SFII on the SNES). Huge difference.

[kupomogli]

Yeah there were some games that were unresponsive, but that is just as much the case this generation than it was back then.

Killzone 3 has dead zone issues, the developers coming out and stating it's to give the game weight but it makes it almost unplayable.

Final Fantasy 4 Advance US/JPN has major lag whenever spells are cast or any attack is done with three or more enemies on screen. Final Fantasy 4 Advance Europe has no graphical lag, but instead has major input lag during battle. I've played both of these games and I personally would rather have the visual lag.

Saint's Row 2. This is how the developers wanted to create it, or maybe they were too lazy, but the driving in the game honestly controls like ass. The turning is extremely jerky. While you can't have the same experience on 8bit games, there are a ton of bird's eye view racing games on the NES that ran great. Or Driver, a similar game on the PSX ran incredibly well, same with the Need for Speed games, Test Drive 4, etc.

Yakuza 3. Yeah I really like the Yakuza series, but why deny something that's fact? I agree when Aussie2B mentioned Castlevania how the jumping was done like that purposefully. You only need to look at all other games in that generation that came prior that allowed to adjust your jump. Or play as Grant DaNasty on Castlevania 3 who has fluid movement and can adjust his jump mid air. Anyways. Kazuma on the Yakuza series has stiff movements whenever fighting, but just like Castlevania, it's a gameplay element of the game that requires you to use some degree of skill to master it or get used to it. I'm not saying the Yakuza games are the hardest games in the world, because they are fairly easy, but the stiff controls are something you really have to get used to.

Others are Mobile Suit Gundam Seed Never Ending Tomorrow, Gundam Crossfire, Star Wars Force Unleashed, the list could go on.

So really? If you want to talk about responsiveness and fluidity, you can't just single out games back then. You're correct about games that were as bad as those such as Street Fighter, etc, but there are games in todays day and age that are just as unresponsive or don't have fluidity in their gameplay.

[sheath]

That would be a genre specific distinction then. Beat em ups improved into the 16-bit era, and then dropped off in nearly every release from then on. Action-Platformers like the Shinobi games basically ended in the 16-bit days. Role playing games switched from grind to dialog (which was more accessible). Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo and Worms World Party were the first time I ever enjoyed 2-player puzzle or strategy games outside of Tengen Tetris on NES.

In my experience, only First/Third Person Shooters and 3D Adventure games improved in gameplay since the 90s. I suppose I should give Racers a nod as well, but I really do prefer older racers.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Difficulty? Pish posh. Here's the real bullshit.
http://gamecootie.com/welcome/sites/default/files/cracked-current.jpg

[retroman]

Classic..by far..most games nowadays are to easy

[XYXZYZ]

I actually think modern games are kinda hard, but that's just because I'm still not used to these damn controllers with 400 buttons all over them.

[Rolf&Nei]

You're all absolutely right about the market-wide standardizing, but remember that's not only to placate larger audiences but because making a video game demands increasingly vast amounts of people, hence the committee effect that ruins everything. There may never be another great video game. (Why would I write something so depressing?)

But to my title question, could any former SNES diehard tell me whether Hagane was as tough as it's now reputed, or whether it's simply an unappealing game (eg Contra Hard Force)? I played a fair amount of SNES back then but was never perfectly comfortable with the controls, and my feeling is that because the attack is in so awkward a place (Y, right over the item-switch) it's made tougher and more irritating than its gameplay would strictly warrant. Or were diehard SNESers used to that sort of placement?